1. The Pressure Equipment Directive and Innovation Guy BAYLAC Technical Advisor of EPERC TP guy.baylac@wanadoo.fr European Commission/TAIEX PED Worshop in Romania Bucharest – 27 February – 1 March 2007

2. 2 Layout Introduction 1.The PED in the present context 2.The future of the PED Conclusion

3. 3 Introduction The Pressure Equipment Directive (PED) was issued in May1997 PED had a great impact with its large scope covering many equipments It was relatively well accepted from the beginning thanks to the Guidelines issued by the Working Group Pressure Time has arrived when it is necessary to raise the question: Is it necessary to revise this directive ?

4. 4 Layout Introduction 1.The PED in the present context 2.The future of the PED Conclusion

5. 5 The goals of industry Competitiveness Safety Innovation, key issue for EPERC

6. 6 Methodology of the Directive 1 Essential safety requirements –Design –Manufacturing –Materials –Specific requirements for steam generators and piping No prescribed values, except in Annex I, paragraph 7 The need for a hazard analysis –Eliminate or reduce hazards –Apply appropriate protection against hazards which cannot be eliminated –Inform users of residual hazards

7. 7 Methodology of the Directive 2 Classification of equipment in function of the hazard Requirements on qualification of personnel and procedures graduated in function of the hazard Conformity assessment procedures Notified bodies and User inspectorates

8. 8 The system has worked 1 Except some difficulties signaled for –The market surveillance –The acceptance of materials –The standards: the presumption of conformity given to harmonized standards (Art 5) was not enough to give the necessary impulse to the development of certain standards (e.g. EN 13445)

9. 9 The system has worked 2 Some difficulties in the development of the research But this is not due to the PED –The goal-setting legislation facilitates initiative –The terms used in the PED give a lot of freedom (e.g. joining of components)

10. 10 The new departure of standardization and research This new departure should result from a greater involvement of the industry with incitative measures, such as: –Public helps to investments –Participation of investors EPERC is ready to help this movement

11. 11 Layout Introduction 1.The PED in the present context 2.The future of the PED Conclusion

12. 12 Cost variations Important cost variations can be noted in the different countries due to: –Different time-intervals in in-service inspection –Acceptance of the concept of Risk-Based inspection –Acceptance of alternative methods for the requalification of equipment

13. 13 Need for a goal- setting legislation EPERC is in favour of a European goal- setting legislation on in-service inspection –Fostering the use of Risk-Base Inspection –Allowing the use of alternative methods to the requalification by hydrotest, as it is already the case in some countries –These alternative methods using Fitnet for Service techniques associated to appropriate planning and innovative NDT methods

14. 14 PED limits PED stops at putting in service or putting on the market It considers assemblies, but not assembly on site which is of the responsibility of Member States In-service inspection is of the responsibility of Member States

15. 15 Layout Introduction 1.The PED in the present context 2.The future of the PED Conclusion

16. 16 Conclusion The PED gives satisfaction as it is The development of standardization and research does not request a modification of the directive and can be obained by other means EPERC suggests that the preparation of a goal-setting legislation on in-service inspection is more urgent that the modification of the PED.